Senate blocks NSA phone records measure (Update)

November 19, 2014 by Ken Dilanian

The Senate on Tuesday blocked a bill to end bulk collection of Americans' phone records by the National Security Agency, dealing a blow to President Barack Obama's primary proposal to rein in domestic surveillance.

The 58-42 vote was two short of the 60 needed to proceed with debate under Senate procedural rules. Voting was largely along party lines, with most Democrats supporting the and most Republicans voting against it. The Republican-controlled House had previously passed its own NSA bill.

The legislation would have ended the NSA's collection of domestic calling records, instead requiring the agency to obtain a each time it wanted to analyze the records in terrorism cases, and query records held by the . In many cases the companies store the records for 18 months.

The revelation that the spying agency had been collecting and storing domestic phone records since shortly after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, was among the most significant by Edward Snowden, a former agency network administrator who turned over secret NSA documents to journalists. The agency collects only so-called metadata—numbers called, not names—and not the content of conversations. But the specter of the intelligence agency holding domestic calling records was deeply disquieting to many Americans.

The bill had drawn support from technology companies and civil liberties activists. Its failure means there has been little in the way of policy changes as a result of Snowden's disclosures.

Pressured to act, Obama in January proposed curbing the NSA's authority and the House in May passed a bill to do so. While the measure was pending, the NSA continued to collect American landline calling records, though the program does not cover most mobile phone records.

The law authorizing the bulk collection, a provision of the post-9/11 USA Patriot Act, will expire at the end of 2015. That means Congress would have to pass legislation re-authorizing the program for it to continue.

For that reason, Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, abandoned her previous opposition to the bill. "If we do not pass the bill, we will lose this program," Feinstein said on the Senate floor.

"This bill increases trust and confidence and credibility of our intelligence system," said Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal.

But Sen. Saxby Chambliss, the ranking Republican on the Intelligence Committee, called the bill "totally flawed" and said the NSA needs the ability to sift through domestic calling records and hold the records. "We have under surveillance any number of Americans who are committed to jihad," Chambliss said.

Republican Sen. Marco Rubio said the bill "gutted" a program that could successfully unravel domestic terror plots. If there is another terror attack on U.S. soil, he said, "I promise you the first question we will be asked is why didn't we know about it and why didn't we prevent it."

One of the few Republicans to support the measure was Sen. Ted Cruz , who said, "This legislation protects the constitutional right to privacy."

Current and former intelligence officials disagree about whether the phone record searching is a crucial counterterrorism tool. The U.S. has only been able to point to a single case that came to light exclusively through a search of domestic phone records— an Anaheim, California, cab driver who was sentenced earlier this year to six years in prison for sending money to Somalia's al-Qaida affiliate.

As it stands, officials have said, the program is not gathering most cell phone billing records, which account for an increasing share of domestic phone calls. Under both the House and the Senate bills, the NSA would have been able to query those records, provided the agency can work through the technical hurdles.

Laura W. Murphy, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Washington Legislative Office, expressed disappointment in the Senate's action.

"Allowing NSA surveillance to continue unchecked does real harm to Americans," she said in a statement. "Constant surveillance violates the Fourth Amendment, chills free speech, imperils freedom of the press, and is an affront to the Constitution. Tonight the Senate voted to maintain a status quo that undermines American technology and consumer privacy and hampers innovation. Though this vote is a setback, it will not stop the push for reform."

Explore further: Coalition wants US to end bulk data sweep

Related Stories

Coalition wants US to end bulk data sweep

April 1, 2014

More than 40 activist organizations and companies called Tuesday for an overhaul of US government surveillance authority that goes beyond President Barack Obama's proposal.

Obama proposes to end NSA bulk data collection

March 25, 2014

US President Barack Obama is proposing to end the National Security Agency's controversial bulk telephone data collection, exposed by fugitive intelligence contractor Edward Snowden.

Intel chairs ask Obama to send bill on NSA changes

January 18, 2014

The chairs of the House and Senate intelligence committees are praising President Barack Obama's speech laying out changes to U.S. spying programs. But they're questioning whether Obama's proposal to end the government's ...

House passes curbs on NSA phone surveillance (Update 3)

May 22, 2014

The House moved the U.S. closer to ending the National Security Agency's bulk collection of Americans' phone records Thursday, the most significant demonstration to date of leaker Edward Snowden's impact on the debate over ...

Keystone pipeline passes one US legislative hurdle

November 14, 2014

The US House of Representatives on Friday approved construction of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline to bring oil from Canada, but the measure could still find itself blocked in the Senate.

Recommended for you

What happened before the Big Bang?

March 26, 2019

A team of scientists has proposed a powerful new test for inflation, the theory that the universe dramatically expanded in size in a fleeting fraction of a second right after the Big Bang. Their goal is to give insight into ...

Cellular microRNA detection with miRacles

March 26, 2019

MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are short noncoding regulatory RNAs that can repress gene expression post-transcriptionally and are therefore increasingly used as biomarkers of disease. Detecting miRNAs can be arduous and expensive as ...

Can China keep it's climate promises?

March 26, 2019

China can easily meet its Paris climate pledge to peak its greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, but sourcing 20 percent of its energy needs from renewables and nuclear power by that date may be considerably harder, researchers ...

In the Tree of Life, youth has its advantages

March 26, 2019

It's a question that has captivated naturalists for centuries: Why have some groups of organisms enjoyed incredibly diversity—like fish, birds, insects—while others have contained only a few species—like humans.


Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

5 / 5 (1) Nov 19, 2014
No one is above the law, not the president, not the congress, not the supreme court, and certainly not private corporate entities. And no amount of propaganda to the contrary can take away those rights of the people that we know are inalienable and self-evident. Only by corruption and violence may those rights be [temporarily] suspended. Enjoy it while lasts, 'honorable' sirs & madams.
1 / 5 (2) Nov 19, 2014
Love how the author mentions only the Republicans in the Senate voting against the bill, ignoring that the Democrats have the majority AND the backing of Libertarian Republicans. Plus, the author ignores the fact that the House of Representatives, who already approved the original bill, has a very large Republican majority. But most importantly, the author fails to recognize that the Senate version of the bill stripped a lot of the privacy protections (and extends the [hated] Patriot Act for another 2 years) from the House bill, which is why it was called "window dressing" by Sen Paul.

But go ahead and keep making this a political fight, and not one about privacy and government overreach.
not rated yet Nov 19, 2014
...It will probably be reintroduced and passed after the new Congress takes office, as then the Senate Republicans can claim responsibility for passing it.

First, I was referencing the author's focus on highlighting the politics which is convenient to his viewpoint. It is obvious that politicians do things for political reasons.

Second, it was the Senate Dems which introduced the language to which the Conservative/Libertarian Reps were opposed. So, knowing that they the Dems would lead the Senate side of the reconciliation, they might not have scrapped the objectionable things. I don't buy the argument that "the same bill would have been passed by both houses, but the Republicans wanted a win", since I think this is exactly the kind of "win" they'd want to show that they're willing to work towards cross-party concerns.
1 / 5 (1) Nov 19, 2014
"the same bill would have been passed by both houses, but the Republicans wanted a win", since I think this is exactly the kind of "win" they'd want to show that they're willing to work towards cross-party concerns.

Yes, except, of course, for the fact that Republican leadership has zero desire to rein in any aspect of the defense/intelligence industry, as it is a spectacularly fecund cash cow, and everyone knows that we have to give up our individual rights and liberties in order to be kept safe from the terrorists under every rock.

And what do you mean by "cross-party concerns"? Like, "how to continue to promote corporatocracy, fill our pockets, do zero to address our constituent's concerns, and still get re-elected?"

Are those the "cross-party concerns" whereof you speak?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.